To Whistleblow or Not to Whistleblow: Affective and Cognitive Differences in Reporting Peers and Advisors

Abstract

Traditional whistleblowing theories have purported that whistleblowers engage in a rational process in determining whether or not to blow the whistle on misconduct. However, stressors inherent to whistleblowing often impede rational thinking and act as a barrier to effective whistleblowing. The negative impact of these stressors on whistleblowing may be made worse depending on who engages in the misconduct: a peer or advisor. In the present study, participants are presented with an ethical scenario where either a peer or advisor engages in misconduct, and positive and the negative consequences of whistleblowing are either directed to the wrongdoer, department, or university. Participant responses to case questions were evaluated for whistleblowing intentions, moral intensity, metacognitive reasoning strategies, and positive and negative, active and passive emotions. Findings indicate that participants were less likely to report the observed misconduct of an advisor compared to a peer. Furthermore, the findings also suggest that when an advisor is the source of misconduct, greater negative affect results. Post-hoc analyses were also conducted examining the differences between those who did and did not intend to blow the whistle under the circumstances of either having to report an advisor or peer. The implications of these findings for understanding the complexities involved in whistleblowing are discussed.

Whistleblowing and interpretation, addressing organizational challenges: a conceptual reflection from Nigeria

“…This also suggests that the practicing manager has the responsibility to weigh the intrinsic values and their decisions and actions in an operational process to ensure an acceptable moral balance that can sustain key operational indicators such as the market share and the corporate image of the organization (Kim and Seo, 2023). These would result in the avoidance of unpleasant effects such as fear, societal intrigue and stigma that can adversely affect the whistleblower, as well as encourage the practicing managers to embrace the challenge to address the issues raised in the act of whistleblowing (Apadore et al, 2018;McIntosh et al, 2019).…”

Should I Blow the Whistle? An In-Depth Study Towards Revealing Determinants of Whistleblowing

“…Methodology-wise, early studies on whistleblowing offered a conceptual framework (e.g., [17,18]). The conceptual framework was then developed by researchers using a quantitative approach through surveys (among others, [5,6,12,19]) and experiments (among others, [9,14,20]). Only a few studies use a qualitative approach that examines whistleblowers in depth.…”

Hospital Climate and Peer Report Intention on Adverse Medical Events: Role of Attribution and Rewards

“…Therefore, peer report is less likely to happen than whistle-blowing supervisors. From another viewpoint, fearing revenge from supervisors may weaken related whistle-blowing intention [ 7 ]. This implies that we should not confuse whistle-blowing supervisors with whistle-blowing colleagues, namely peer reporters.…”

“…All AMEs, regardless of type, should draw more attention [ 5 , 6 ]. Bottom-up reporting AMEs is more effective than top-down perceiving and monitoring [ 7 ]. Moreover, health professionals are usually first to involve and perceive adverse events (AEs) and should act as critical information sources of these events [ 8 ].…”